Saturday, October 26, 2013

Post-Flood Nephelim revisited

I link to Gary Bates:

The return of the Nephilim?

And to Haydock comment for Numbers 13:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
NUMBERS - Chapter 13

Relevant passage from Gary Bates:

The descendants of Anak (the Anakim/Anakites) were obviously a group of large people. However, in verse 28 the spies also reported that many of the other people in the land were “strong”. There are several other passages that refer to the Anakim as a powerful group of people (Deuteronomy 9:2, for example), but verse 33 in Numbers 13 is the only passage that suggests any Anakite relationship to the Nephilim. Once again, it should be remembered that these Anakim were descendants of post-Flood people. They could not be descended from the pre-Flood Nephilim. Chapter 10 of Genesis records the “Table of Nations”; that is, the descendants of Noah’s sons, and there is no mention of Anak or the Nephilim, post-Flood.

A lying report

It should be noted that the spies brought back a bad, or “evil” (Hebrew dibbah, “to slander, whisper, or defame”) report. That report included a parenthetic insertion that the large people known as the sons of Anak were descended from the Nephilim. The NIV simply puts it as:

“We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim) …” (Numbers. 13:33).

Of the 12 spies, only Joshua and Caleb, trusting God, were keen to enter and take possession of the land

At first reading, this may seem like a factual account, but it is part of the quoted false report of the spies. Of the 12 spies, only Joshua and Caleb, trusting God, were keen to enter and take possession of the land; the other 10 did not want to.

Relevant passage from Haydock comments:

Ver. 33. Spoke ill, &c. These men, who, by their misrepresentations of the land of promise, discouraged the Israelites from attempting the conquest of it, were a figure of worldlings, who, by decrying or misrepresenting true devotion, discourage Christians from seeking in earnest and acquiring so great a good, and thereby securing to themselves a happy eternity. (Challoner) --- Devoureth, by being exposed to continual wars from the Arabs, Idumeans, and from its own inhabitants, the monsters of the race of Enac. With this God had threatened the Hebrews, if they proved rebellious, Leviticus xxvi. 38. See Ezechiel xxxvi. 13. (Calmet)

Ver. 34. Monsters. Hebrew, "giants." --- Locusts, or grasshoppers. So much inferior in size were we to them. Hebrew insinuates that the spies entertained these sentiments when they beheld the giants, and the latter seemed to look down upon them with contempt; "and so we were in their sight." These wicked men scrupled not to exaggerate in order to fill the people with dismay. (Haydock) --- Their suggestions tended to make them distrust the goodness or the power of God; and therefore he would not suffer them to enjoy the sweets of the land, chap. xiv. 23, 29. (Worthington) See Deuteronomy i. 28., and Isaias xl. 21.

Thanking Gary Bates very much for the correction.

Rob Skiba has a point about the one argument here:

Once again, it should be remembered that these Anakim were descendants of post-Flood people. They could not be descended from the pre-Flood Nephilim.

He would have answered that Ham's wife might well and Japheth's wife possibly too have had some Nephelim ancestry from before the Flood.

As I have argued in another place that the events of Mahabharata could have been brought to India from descendants of Ham whose wife might descend from the deified charioteer known as "the black one" (Krsna or Krishna in the later Sanskrit version). On top of them fitting with the fact that Cainite dynasty was hardly doing just seven generations same time as Sethite lineage was doing ten and Biblical dynasty of Cain ends with a king who has two wives and with one two sons with other a son and a daughter. The conflict in Mahabharata is between cousins, i e royalty whose fathers were brothers.

But the Amorites need not have been Nephelim, that may have been a slander on the part of the ten spies. Agreed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Demetrius the Myrrhoblite

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Homer (again)

1) Homer (again), 2) Legendary Men vs Mythical Gods

He is our main authority on the Trojan War. Our only early authority on Ulysses' return after it. He was neither Christian nor Hebrew, but a Pagan with primary belief in "Homeric gods" it would seem - possibly unlike Virgil who lived after Lucrece.

I think he was in general a good recorder of past facts.

Troy and Mycenae were found by Schliemann, whereas Dörpfeld, Leaf and others have given accounts of landscapes and ruins and harbours talked about (but for the ruins they were not talked about as ruins) in the Iliad and Odyssey.

One could object that his false theology would make his history incredible. But when he introduces the gods, this is not so much history as interpretation of history. Sometimes it could even be some facthood behind: when Apollo lures a battler away to his ruin, when Athena counsels Ulysses ... either natural or supernatural explanations might come to mind. And "Hermes" telling such and such to do so and so might be real guardian angels or real conscience of people.

Nevertheless, his theology is bad. The one true God (who directed the events behind the Iliad and Odyssey as and insofar as they happened) is unknown. When false gods like "Zeus" and "Athena" or "Hermes" get sacrifice from heathens, Homer approves. These gods are wrong because they are not holy, they quarrel, like Zeus with his wife Hera, like Athena with her uncle Poseidon.

Some of the gods show clearly demonic traits in their actions (which can therefore be real sicne demons are real): Apollo and Aphrodite in Iliad, Poseidon in Odyssey, all three in Greek tragedy (Oresty and Thebaid* for Apollo, Hippolytus for Aphrodite and Poseidon). Nevertheless, to Homer they are simply gods and entitled to worship.

The descent to Hades is either Homer's conceit or an illusion experienced by Ulysses, but it is shown as "reality" of the beyond.

Circe may have had the power to make men look like swine and (as any hypnotist with a well "conditioned" victim) behave like them and think they were such, but she could certainly not make them such in their nature.

Thanks to the Divine Revelation, we can know where Homer is wrong on Theology. But where he is not contradicting Revelation, his word should usually be accepted. However, we may have other ancient sources giving us reasons to believe things he left out or contradicted.

He left out that the Achæan Greece and Phrygian Troad were both Hittite dependencies. After what Leaf writes about Achæans under Hittites this may be a very merciful thing to leave out. He sometimes uses words about iron and iron weapons and tools which were probably not standard in Mycenean times. But in general this does not make his story incredible.

We know from Holy Writ, as Christians, that giants have existed and been beaten. Homeric accounts may be either true or plagiarised from King David or Caleb.

The sun did not stand still or go over earth the wrong way for Thyestes' sake ... as Homer did not know, the earth is round, so in that case somewhere the sun would have been seen halt from its westward way and start going east. Which is not the case.

But whether Homer understood that or not, Agamemnon knew the Sun had stood still and on what occasion since he tried in vain to pray for the same thing. Since he could not repeat Joshua's feat, there was an immediate interest on his part (and plenty of time up to Homer and the Tragedians) to plant a false story to contaminate the real memory of the real sun miracle.

The present day low rating of Homer's historic accuracy is due to its confirming in general a worldview and a view of history in which supernatural things happen and in which morality counts in physical results, that the "Enlightenment" apostasy opposed.

It is not due to any inherent improbability in Homer getting things mainly right over three or four centuries of tradition, nor to any inherent improbability that Providence punished Helen's infidelity but also Agamemnon's pride, or punished the pride of the Suitors and rewarded the fidelity of Penelope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Mary Salomé

*Thebaid is the landscape? Sorry, meant Theban Cycle of course!

Saturday, October 19, 2013

I am not a believer in Hörbiger

1) somewhere else : Would "Finding Extraterrestrials" Disprove Christianity?, 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I am not a believer in Hörbiger, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Would finding Atlantis disprove the Flood of Noah?

In case you do not know who Hörbinger is, maybe von Däniken strikes a bell.

Thing is, outside the Biblical time scale, theories vary. One is the Darwininan one, with its continuations up to Haldane and beyond. According to it, you can compare the age of the earth to a year and you get Homo Erectus at about 8 pm on the last day, on December 31. Or you get World War II a few minutes before midnight or even just a few seconds before midnight. I am sure pretty much everyone in the Modern Western World is familiar with what this view entails as story line. Abiogenesis, one celled organisms joining up into many celled organisms, fish getting onto land, dinos getting into air (as both birds and pterodactyls) and back into water and into mammals, mammals getting into air as bats and back into water as dolphins and whales, mammals getting into primates, primates into hominids, hominids into man, cave men into farmers, spirit worshippers into polytheists, Christianity an interesting but bygone part of human spiritual evolution. I am arguing against this view all the time.

Now, I was looking into Hörbinger when I was younger. Not for truth with a big T, but simply for truths and even when falsehoods somewhat more interesting such than the Darwinian such.

I did not ever say that I believe neither Darwin nor the Bible, but prefer Hörbinger. I am a Christian.

What I said was, that if you do get away from the Bible you can as well get into Hörbinger, Edgar Cayce, von Däniken, Zechariah Sitchens as into Darwin and Haldane.

That is not so much a rational compliment to the Hörbinger team as an insult to the Darwinian one. And it is meant to be so.

It is in a way an æsthetic compliment to the Hörbinger team and their stories. I would like to say it as their "tall stories" - a particularly apt wording about especially Hörbinger. He believed that the Moon we have is not the first, that previous moons have fallen into the Earth with horrid cataclysms as a result and that before doing so it was close and therefore enabled men and beasts to grow higher, since counterbalancing the gravity of Earth (wonder a bit how that works out when moon is under the earth and added to its gravitation ...). But one thing I think they did get right is that there have been giants.

This is not an endorsement of "Ancient Alien Astronauts" theories like those of von Däniken. If he takes sometimes the right phenomena, like this or that tale or picture of giants, he gives the wrong explanation.

He gives the explanation that best accords with an Atheistic or Pantheistic and basically Darwinian universe, in which however Earth is not itself quite Darwinian in its past, in which life and human civilisation are not purely local evolution products.

I agree they are not, but I do not agree they are evolution products on older stars with older planets either.

I hold totally to the Christian story. As I hold to the Christian Metaphysics.

But I also hold that if you reject it you are as wise or as foolish to believe in Hörbinger as you are to believe in Dawkins.

This is what I believe about the giants of old:

Baruch 3: [26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

As to the end of the chapter I hold with the Christian interpretation:

[29] Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? [30] Who hath passed over the sea, and found her, and brought her preferably to chosen gold?

[31] There is none that is able to know her ways, nor that can search out her paths: [32] But he that knoweth all things, knoweth her, and hath found her out with his understanding: he that prepared the earth for evermore, and filled it with cattle and fourfooted beasts: [33] He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth: and hath called it, and it obeyeth him with trembling. [34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.

[36] This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. [37] He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. [38] Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.

[38] Was seen upon earth: viz., by the mystery of the incarnation, by means of which the son of God came visibly amongst us, and conversed with men. The prophets often speak of things to come as if they were past, to express the certainty of the event of the things foretold.

God who commands every angel that directs any star became man in Bethlehem and died on Calvary. He rose on the Third Day according to Scripture. He gave his wisdom to the Apostles - by the years of their discipleship, by the forty days before Ascension and by the Giving of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, and the Church so endowed remains to this day. And will until the end of time.

He even bettered the possibilities for giants, since, unlike those of old, St Christopher was among his chosen ones. And found wisdom and what is more than wisdom. Life eternal. Friendship with his maker and redeemer.

But apart from that, if you have some time to spend on stories that are not sure and theories that are not true about these stories, I do recommend Hörbinger above Darwin.

Not meaning he should not be debunked as to the false claims of truth. Here is a video that does some good job:

VerseByVerseBT : Ancient Aliens Debunked - (full movie) HD*

I have not seen all of it, and if it explicitly denies the existence of giants, I would disagree. Stone hammers can be used by merely human people to chisel big stone blocks, they can have been used by giants, and they can have been used by people who worked under the threats of giants. But I am not equating giants with alien astronauts. Nor do I think we will set our feet on even Mars, let alone planets around the stars. I do not credit astronauts with such capabilities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Peter Alcantara

*The section UFOs in Ancient art starts off as saying that supposed "space ships" in a Crucifixion scene are actually Sun and Moon shown with human traits throughout Crucifixion scenes of Byzantine Tradition. This totally agrees - not with Ancient Alien Austronauts indeed - but with what I believe: that Sun and Moon are either bodies of or more likely jewels held by angels. And of course that of the Sun did not only watch the Crucifixion, but also chose to go dark when watching it. Something God accorded him (unlike the usual rule for him of shining on both good and bad).

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Refuting Vikernes on Odalism and European Religion

Why Ôðalism?

Ôðalism is opposed to all forms of internationalism, be it universal faiths such as the Judeo-Christian religions or Marxist ideologies, because internationalism is a threat to the human diversity of our planet. Each religion, culture, customs, traditions and world view stem from the blood and soil of a particular people, and can not be made universal.

Why should Ôðalism then be universal?

Ôðalism is not nationalism in a modern sense: each and every modern nation is a modern construct based on geography (where the borders have been drawn) and ethnicity (i. e. languages spoken) instead of racial – or if you prefer tribal – identities. The Ôðalic nationalism is based on race. E. g. to Europeans today the European race (and different sub-races) is the nation. The language spoken is completely irrelevant in relation to racial identities.

Switzerland is a good example of Ôðalism in practise. And in some places the choice of German or French, of Italian or the language that Dante recognised as Latin and as Langue-d'oc is indeed completely irrelevant to local loyalties.

So are, often enough, the larger "racial loyalties." Russians may be as white as the Swiss, they are not Swiss. A Negro or Korean adopted in a Swiss family is Swiss.

This "universal plan" of Ôðalism is very incomplete about where Jews and where Mixed Races should be living. Maybe he expects North America to be the answer.

If the answer is "nowhere" or "send them into space", Vikernes is alas not honest when saying :

There is not hatred for others in Ôðalism, only love for your own. There is no destruction of others in Ôðalism, only protection and preservation of what is your own.

As a Christian I can say that Odalism is a good thing - within limits and allowing for exceptions. But Vikernes sets Odalism up as the rule of what the religion of each place should be and thus bypasses the limits. And he seems not to give much room for exceptions either, except for North America.

Why the European Religion?

Before citing any piece of text, I would like to show a picture from the essay (click to see in full):

See the Oracle of Delphi doing "arm rise" under some hypnotic influence? Think she is happy? Think again.

She may be under some kind of euphoria or she may be without it, but dragged into it by the lure of euphoria. She is not herself. And I do not say that just because of speculation about the hypnotic state, which can be enjoyed as a pleasure, though I consider it a dangerous one, but there is worse.

Her words are not interpreted as words of herself, but as words of some divinity or demon possessing her. They are not interpreted according to her explanations, but according to explanations of the priests of Apollo beside her - as today the words of a mental patient may be interpreted totally to his discomfort if some psychiatrist is standing behind and explaining them.

She has no freedom to avoid any issue she dislikes, she has no freedom to avoid giving death or misery by bad advice, as the demons did through her when it came to Acrisius and Oedipus, to Iocaste and all their family.

And if you think she is European, also think again. You can find her cousins and colleagues in Haiti and on Cuba, in Voodoo and in Santería. She used to be there in the North, since the Nordic "Theogony with Apocalypse" Voluspá was said by one like her. Thankfully the North was delivered from this. By Christians. By exorcists. By priests. Real priests of the White Christ!

If we go from the Sibyl to the content of Norse Myth, I am not sure I would call it very European either. If giants really existed - I think they did - it is very probable that Genesis, Baruch, Book of Henoch or even what now passes in some circles as Book of Jasher tells us more accurately than Norse myth who and what these were. If we go to the creation account, Odin, Vile and Ve do the work of Marduk. A Babylonian deity not getting around to create earth before killing a monster that he might himself be descended from. European? Not much!

With the re-introduction of the European religion we will start to live like we did before, in harmony with ourselves and our environment, and be able to cultivate our racial peculiarities, known to have brought forth philosophy, mathematics, architecture, beautiful music, sculptures, paintings, poetry, medicine, astronomy and all sorts of technology.

Racial peculiarities, philosophy, mathematics, architecture, beautiful music, sculptures, paintings, poetry, medicine, astronomy and technology are all of them very good things - in their proper places.

They flourished most in Europe when Theology was admitted to be the Queen of the Arts and when Christianity was admitted as the true Theology.

The European religion promotes not some fictional otherworldly “Paradise” as the ultimate goal for each individual man, but instead the eternal life on the soil of the forebears, and immortality through Honour.

Making honour and the fate of posterity the ultimate goal makes for committing heinous crimes for them. Renaissance was into this, and we had things like the Borgias or the Medicis. We had things like the Codottieri and the Landsknechte. We had things culminating in the Thirty Years War, after the Renaissance had launched Protestantism by its disregard for Catholic Tradition.

There is no contempt for the Earth, no description of Earth as something you have to “endure” or “tolerate” until you can move on to something better.

We do not say Earth is these things. We say life on earth or earthly concerns are these things. And anyone who is honest about it and not very lucky would tend to agree. Erga kai hemerai by Hesiod is a pretty long speech of agreement with "in hac lacrymarum valle". So are parts of the Theogony. So are parts of Voluspá. How has Vikernes himself enjoyed prison? As something to cherish or as something to tolerate? And yet prison has been part of his walk on this earth too.

But it seems he is more Christian (of a Modernist kind) than he likes to admit when in a post he links back to he states:

The ettin is not a name for a different race or anything like that. It is a power of a certain type, wild and some times wonderful, untameable and uncontrollable, and this power can be found in nature, but also in us. The opposite of this ettin power when it operates in us is what we would call moderation or temperance. So the Pagan man is a Stoic, with moderation and temperance as supreme ideals against a wild and untameable ettin power. He knows that he must not allow the ettin power to prevail, he knows that he must work hard to keep the ettin power at bay and he knows that he is a God (or a Goddess) and not an ettin!

As far as I know, Northern man was not famous for moderation. Adils bent down over the rings of gold that Rolf Krake spent. Rolf died in an ambush. So did quite a few others. If ettins or thursar were ever meant to scare Northern man from lack of measure, they considerably failed. When one Olof Tretelgja was a measured man, it was because of shame for his father's cruelty and hybris. You know the Odin-descendant (and Adils-descendant) Ingjald who burnt his guests so he could get their kingdoms under his own. And of course, saying ettins never were a race of any kind is not only doing unjustice to the literalism of Northern men, but also to that of Hebrews and Christians - and of one L. A. Marzulli who is digging up evidence for them. And of course Adils who started our first colony in Finland due to his take on honour hardly died a very nice death according to Northern ideals - his slave girl from Finland resented his approaches and he was killed as surely as Sisera or Holophernes. Beowulf was perhaps the noblest, with Rolf Krake, but even he drew Wiglaf to death by his "overmod", even his uncle died in a raid of pure plunder.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Margaret Mary Alacoque

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Jamblique antischolastique?

Il me semble être le cas ... au moins dans le personnage "moi litéraire" qui parle dans Les Mystères d'Égypte.*

Tu dis donc que tu "concèdes l'existence des dieux", mais il n'est pas correcte de s'exprimer ainsi. Car notre nature a de son fonds la connaissance innée des dieux, supérieure à toute critique et à toute option, et antérieure au raisonnément et à la démonstration ... À dire vrai, ce n'est pas même une connaissance que le contact avec la divinité. Car la connaissance est séparée (de son objet) par une sorte d'altérité. Or, antérieurement à celle qui connaît un autre comme étant elle-même autre, spontanée est l'étreinte uniforme qui nous a suspendus aux dieux ...

Fidéisme antiintellectuel pur jus, comme devant certains "mystères" de New Age. Se trouve-t-il le bon St Thomas d'Aquin à la Bibliothèque Universitaire de Nanterre - Paris X? Je ne le trouve pas exactement dans les rayons de Latin, hélas.

Jamblique me paraît tout aussi antischolastique que Romanides!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre
Ste Thérèse d'Avila

*Début chapître 3 du livre I, selon l'édition Les Belles Lettres Paris 1989.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Jean-Pierre Maury sur l'affaire Galilée

1) Georges Minois cite et décrit une hérésie exégétique de Galilée de Pise, 2) Jean-Pierre Maury sur l'affaire Galilée

Que dit St Robert Bellarmine pour commencer l'affaire (je viens déjà de mettre en garde contre l'exégèse horrible, trop méprisante envers les simples et trop libérale envers les savants de l'autre concerné)? Notre auteur contemporain cité dans le titre de cet essai vient d'écrire un livre publié dans la série Gallimard Découvertes sur Galilée, Le messager des étoiles et sur la page 82 il nous livre un petit goût de l'argument:

Sa lettre [celle de St Robert Bellarmine] se termine par un argument qui montre à quel point ses adversaires et lui parlent deux langues différentes: "L'homme qui a écrit: 'la Terre est éternellement en repos; le Soleil se lève et se couche ...' c'est Salomon qui tenait toute sa sagesse de Dieu Lui-même: il est invraisemblable qu'il ait pu faire une déclaration contraire à la vérité prouvée, ou susceptible d'être prouvée..."*

Il me semble qu'il faut tenir cet "il est invraisemblable" comme une expression de litothèse.

Rappelons que si Josué a fait le miracle, lui aussi a reçu l'inspiration pour le faire et donc la sagesse en le faisant de Dieu Lui-même - quand un peu plus tard Agamemnon essayait de repéter ce miracle par sa prière idôlatre, il n'avait pas cette sagesse et donc aucune réussite. Et de la suite la légende grecque du miracle de Josué s'est déformée en légende grecque du Soleil horrifié par le tort fait à Thyestes, l'oncle d'Agamemnon.

Mais comme pour Kent Hovind le mot du Seigneur "du début de la création il les créa homme et femme" suffit pour prouver que l'homme n'est pas venu si rélativement tard que le veulent par exemple Pascal Picq ou Michel Coudeyre, ainsi pour St Robert Bellarmine suffit le mot de Son ancêtre le Roi Salomon. C'est "la langue de" l'inerrantiste qui ne veut pas faire trop sophistiqué en questions de vérité. Ce qui n'est pas "la langue de" Galilée.

Je remercie Jean-Pierre Maury beaucoup pour transmettre le bon St Robert, ne fût-ce qu'en bribes.

On doit aussi à Maury le renseignement que c'est un Dominicain, père Lorini, du couvent Saint-Marc à Florence, où se trouve un mural très célèbre avec un des plus célèbres images du Saint Dominic, qui sonne l'alarme et ceci à propos justement le miracle de Josué.

Si c'est très bien que Jean-Pierre Maury a étudié certains tours du cas (je le soupçonne d'avoir pris un renseignement de l'accusé sur ce qu'avaient fait ses accusateurs, quand St Robert n'aurait lu de Copernic que la préface - il se trompait quand il se plaignait que nul entre ses accusateurs avait regardé à travers la lunette, car St Robert correspondait avec Clavius qui l'avait fait sur sa demande, et nulle chose que Galilée avait vue par la lunette n'entrait dans les thèses condamnées de la suite), par contre il est moins bien renseigné sur ce qui se passe 200 ans plus tard en 1822.

La machine continue à tourner : la décision est lue en chaire par tous les prêtres, annoncée à toutes les universités. Les inquisiteurs de toute l'Europe confisquent chez les libraires les livres de Copernic et de ceux qui le soutiennent. Il faudra encore attendre deux siècles pour que l'Église admette officiellement que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil. Très exactement en 1822 ... [p. 88]

Passons vite sur l'exaggération - les universités en pays Protestants n'ont pas reconnu l'obligation de lire des jugements papaux, et il n'y avait pas d'inquisiteurs en toute Europe, même pas tous les pays Catholiques. Revenons à 1822 ou plutôt 1823.

Dans cette année se passe très exactement l'affaire Settele, où un Jésuite veut jouer un "Laplace Chrétien" ou un "Galilée corrigé", et dans laquelle le pape empêche l'inquisiteur en chef, Anfossi, de condamner son livre.

Mais renverser une politique d'interdit contre une position n'est pas la même chose que de l'admettre comme sa propre doctrine. Non, l'Église n'a pas admis en 1823 que la Terre tourne autour du Soleil, ni officiellement, ni autrement. Anfossi a été obligé de laisser passer le livre de Settele, mais il n'a pas été obligé de changer sa position qui était celle du Saint Jésuite du procès de 1616. Précisément comme depuis un levée d'excommunications, sous condition qu'il soit fait par un vrai pape, on ne serait plus condamné pour ne pas croire la papauté ou le filioque, mais ça ne veut pas dire que les Catholiques soient officiellement devenus obligatoirement Photiens. De même manière, en 1823, on n'a nullement obligé les Catholiques de devenir Copernicéens en Astronomie. Et à plus forte raison on ne les a pas obligés de devenir adhérants à l'exégèse de Galilée plutôt que de celle de St Robert Bellarmine.

Je ne sais pas exactement de quel sac Maury nous sort ce renseignement faux, peut-être qu'il l'a entendu sans vérifier ce que s'est passé dans l'affaire de Settele et d'Anfossi. Par contre, moi je me suis renseigné. Qui veut lire mes trouvailles est le bienvenu de les lire en anglais sur ce message:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(gui barle drès bien
l'enrhubé ...)
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Notre Dame du St Rosaire

*Je viens de vérifier que les mots du même Salomon en lieux cités par une certaine secte ne sanctionnent pas le thnétopsychisme de cette secte. Voir les commentaires Haydock sur Ecclésiastes 9:5 et Psaume 145:4.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Il vient d'écrire ceci?

Mohammed Arkoun (clicquer pour ouvrir image):

Pas un vrai génie, quoi ... je crois que je continue d'appeler cette Bibliothèque là Mouffetard, malgré le changément de nom officiel./HGL

Neesings ...

I suspected it might have been what Anglo-Saxons would have spelled "be sinum fneosungum leoht sceonaþ" or possibly "leoht leosaþ". But I am not sure (without looking up) whether "leosaþ" is cognate of German "lösen" (which does not fit)* or with Swedish "lysa" (which does), I even suspect it is lösen. Now English has two words from fneosan - neese and sneeze. First neese by elimination of f and then sneese (later sneeze) by strengthening of it to a more strident consonant. There is a similar couple in Swedish - fnysa and nysa. Since we had English missionaries in the tenth C, it could be a doublet of loan words.

Now, nysa and sneeze mean the same thing. It is the involuntary explosion of breath after itching in the nose. Like when you have a cold. Or take too much mustard or horseradish.

So I wonder whether fnysa and neese might also mean the same thing - the kind of voluntary or semivoluntary violent breath from nose which denotes anger or irritation. When it comes to horses being eager or angry, we say "fnysa" in Swedish. The fact is I find Leviathan a bit more terrible if it is the latter that makes some liquids in his head combine and ignite (Hovind's theory about how it works, technically, as in Bombardier Beetle).**

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Placidus and Companions
Martyrs in Messina

Won't hide this discussion: here.

*It is not: lösen is leasan of course! Both as they suppose from *Proto-Germanic present stem with *-au-.

**And most terrible of all if his voluntary "neesings" (supposing I got meaning right) get the relative strength to his body size as a sneeze would.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Le personnage "Sunday" n'est pas Dieu

G. K. Chesterton a écrit le roman The Man Who Was Thursday de manière que le personnage Sunday cite certains mots de Notre Seigneur. Certains ont eu l'impression que Sunday dans le roman est Notre Seigneur, qu'il est Dieu. G. K. Chesterton a écrit une nouvelle préface au roman, il nie formellement cette identité.

Ceci me paraît autant plus nécessaire à souligner parce que José Bergamín écrit dans un chapitre assez souillé par anticléricalisme et par haine inutile et principielle envers l'église ainsi, j'enlève les parenthèses et la note:

Dieu paraît anarchiste. Et dans une fantaisie de Chesterton nous le trouvons doublement symbolisé: comme chef des anarchistes et comme chef de la police. Suprême paradoxe anarchisant.

Si j'enlève la note, c'est que seul ce roman parmi les œuvres de Chesterton coincide avec la description donnée. Si j'elève la parenthèse c'est parce que, si pour l'auteur c'était une parenthèse, c'est ici mon propos ce qu'il disait dans cette parenthèse.

It was a very melodramatic sort of moonshine, but it had a kind of notion in it; and the point is that it described, first a band of the last champions of order fighting against what appeared to be a world of anarchy, and then the discovery that the mysterious master both of the anarchy and the order was the same sort of elemental elf who had appeared to be rather too like a pantomime ogre. This line of logic, or lunacy, led many to infer that this equivocal being was meant for a serious description of the Deity; and my work even enjoyed a temporary respect among those who like the Deity to be so described. But this error was entirely due to the fact that they had read the book but had not read the title page. In my case, it is true, it was a question of a subtitle rather than a title. The book was called The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare.*

Dans un cauchemar on trouve des blasphèmes même. À plus forte raison des choses qui pourraient devenir blasphèmes si on les appliquait au Bon Dieu. Chesterton se refuse au jeu de José Bergamín. Le chapitre ou il le fait est un chapitre où l'évangile se refuse à son jeu anticlérical aussi. Il confond l'éjection violente des changeurs d'argent avec la Destruction de Jérusalem. Certes, le Temple était devenu souillé par le déicide décidé par Caïphe qui de la suite allait sacrifier dans le Temple. Mais la destruction du Temple pour juste qu'elle était dans cette perspective avait une apparence de sacrilège. Celui qui a mis le feu à l'église San Luís, contrairement à ce que dit le prêtre admiré par José Bergamín, a commis un sacrilège.

Pour revenir aux anarchistes dans ce roman, le propos était de les infiltrer pour empêcher leur buts anti-vie. Sunday dans le roman n'est pas le vrai anarchiste, juste un infiltré avec beaucoup de réussite. Le vrai anarchiste est celui qu'on retrouve exclu des anarchistes, et qui fait figure de Satan autant que ou plus que Sunday le fait de Dieu. C'est un artiste dépravé. Un milieu que Chesterton connaissait et qu'il avait quitté. Le vrai anarchiste s'appelle Gregory, et il n'est pas un bon mec.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
St Rémi

*Extract from an article by G.K. Chesterton concerning The Man Who was Thursday published in the Illustrated London News, 13 June 1936 (the day before his death)